Skip to main content
Log in

Recovering Quantum Logic Within an Extended Classical Framework

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a procedure which allows us to recover classical and nonclassical logical structures as concrete logics associated with physical theories expressed by means of classical languages. This procedure consists in choosing, for a given theory \({{\mathcal{T}}}\) and classical language \({{\fancyscript{L}}}\) expressing \({{\mathcal{T}}, }\) an observative sublanguage L of \({{\fancyscript{L}}}\) with a notion of truth as correspondence, introducing in L a derived and theory-dependent notion of C-truth (true with certainty), defining a physical preorder \(\prec\) induced by C-truth, and finally selecting a set of sentences ϕ V that are verifiable (or testable) according to \({{\mathcal{T}}, }\) on which a weak complementation is induced by \({{\mathcal{T}}. }\) The triple \((\phi_{V},\prec,^{\perp})\) is then the desired concrete logic. By applying this procedure we recover a classical logic and a standard quantum logic as concrete logics associated with classical and quantum mechanics, respectively. The latter result is obtained in a purely formal way, but it can be provided with a physical meaning by adopting a recent interpretation of quantum mechanics that reinterprets quantum probabilities as conditional on detection rather than absolute. Hence quantum logic can be considered as a mathematical structure formalizing the properties of the notion of verification in quantum physics. This conclusion supports the general idea that some nonclassical logics can coexist without conflicting with classical logic (global pluralism) because they formalize metalinguistic notions that do not coincide with the notion of truth as correspondence but are not alternative to it either.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Of course, truth and C-truth are different notions in our approach. But it must be noted that the identification of true with certain, or certainly true, is basic in some approaches to the foundations of QM (in particular, in the Geneva–Brussels approach (Piron 1976; Aerts 1999)). We show in Sect. 4 that true and certainly true coincide in CM if pure states only are considered, which may lead one to overlook the deep difference between the two notions.

  2. A measurement can be described as an interaction between a physical object and a measuring apparatus in CM. In a real measurement the apparatus is in a mixed state because one never knows all its properties at a microscopic level, hence probabilities must be introduced in the theoretical description (which admit an ignorance interpretation, hence are epistemic). Unsharp properties and contextuality then occur if one wants to refer to the physical object only, avoiding a complete description of the interaction with the measuring apparatus (the “hidden measurement” processes in the case of Aerts’ quantum machine). It must be noted, however, that a deeper form of nonlocal contextuality occurs in QM according to an orthodox view (Bell 1964; Greenberger et al. 1990; Mermin 1993) and that this kind of contextuality is avoided in the ESR model mentioned in Sect. 1 (Garola and Sozzo 2009, 2010, 2011a, b).

  3. Note that a similar objection does not occur in the case of predicates denoting states, because the extension ext(S) of a state \({S \in {\fancyscript{S}}}\) can be interpreted as the set of all physical objects that are actually prepared in the state S.

References

  • Aerts, D. (1985). A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics and a macroscopic situation that violates Bell inequalities. In Mittelstaedt, P., et al. (Eds.), Recent developments in quantum logic (pp. 235–251). Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D. (1986). A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 27, 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D. (1987). The origin of the non-classical character of the quantum probability model. In Blanquiere, A., et al. (Eds.), Information, complexity and control in quantum physics (pp. 77–100). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D. (1988). The physical origin of the EPR paradox and how to violate Bell inequalities by macroscopic systems. In Lahti, P., et al. (Eds.), Symposium on the foundations of modern physics (pp. 305–320). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D. (1991). A macroscopic classical laboratory situation with only macroscopic classical entities giving rise to a quantum mechanical probability model. In Accardi, L. (Ed.), Quantum probability and related topics (pp. 75–85). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D. (1995). Quantum structures: An attempt to explain their appearance in nature. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34, 1165–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D. (1998). The hidden measurement formalism: What can be explained and where quantum paradoxes remain. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 37, 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D. (1999). Quantum mechanics: Structures, axioms and paradoxes. In Aerts, D., & Pykacz, J. (Eds.), Quantum physics and the nature of reality (pp. 141–205). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. R., & Belnap, N. D. (1975). Entailment: The logic of relevance and necessity (Vol. I). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. R., Belnap, N. D., & Dunn, J. M. (1992). Entailment: The logic of relevance and necessity (Vol. II). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J. S. (1966). On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Review of Modern Physics, 38, 447–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beltrametti, E. G., & Cassinelli, G. (1981). The logic of quantum mechanics. Reading, MA: Addison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkhoff, G., & von Neumann, J. (1936). The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics, 37, 823–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalla Chiara, M. L. (1974). Logica. Milano: ISEDI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalla Chiara, M. L., Giuntini, R., & Greechie, R. (2004). Reasoning in quantum theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dalla Pozza, C., & Garola, C. (1995). A pragmatic interpretation of intuitionistic propositional logic. Erkenntnis, 43, 81–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garola, C. (1992). Truth versus testability in quantum logic. Erkenntnis, 37, 197–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garola, C. (2008). Physical propositions and quantum languages. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 47, 90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garola, C., & Pykacz, J. (2004). Locality and measurements within the SR model for an objective interpretation of quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 34, 449–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garola, C., & Solombrino, L. (1996a). The theoretical apparatus of semantic realism: A new language for classical and quantum physics. Foundations of Physics, 26, 1121–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garola, C., & Solombrino, L. (1996b). Semantic realism versus EPR-like paradoxes: The Furry, Bohm-Aharonov, and Bell paradoxes. Foundations of Physics, 26, 1329–1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garola, C., & Sozzo, S. (2004). A semantic approach to the completeness problem in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 34, 1249–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garola, C., & Sozzo, S. (2009). The ESR model: A proposal for a noncontextual and local Hilbert space extension of QM. Europhysics Letters, 86, 20009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garola, C., & Sozzo, S. (2010). Embedding quantum mechanics into a broader noncontextual theory: A conciliatory result. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 49, 3101–3117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garola, C., & Sozzo, S. (2011a). Generalized observables, Bell’s inequalities and mixtures in the ESR model. Foundations of Physics, 41, 424–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garola, C., & Sozzo, S. (2011b). Extended representations of observables and states for a noncontextual reinterpretation of QM. ArXiv:1107.2271v2 [quant-ph].

  • Girard, J. Y. (1987). Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50, 1–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberger, D. M., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., & Zeilinger, A. (1990). Bell’s theorem without inequalities. American Journal of Physics, 58, 1131–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haack, S. (1974). Deviant logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haack, S. (1978). Philosophy of logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heyting, A. (1934). Matematische Grundlagenforschung, Intuitionismus, Beweistheorie. Ergebnisse der Matematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, 3, Berlin.

  • Heyting, A. (1956). Intuitionism. An introduction. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jammer, M. (1974). The philosophy of quantum mechanics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochen, S. & Specker, E. P. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, G. (1983). Foundations of quantum mechanics I. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Łukasiewicz, J. (1920). O logice trójwartościowej. Ruch Filozoficzny, 5, 169–171; (1970. On three-valued logic. In L. Borkowski (Ed.), Jan Łukasiewicz, selected works (pp. 87–88). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, trans).

  • Lycan, W. (2000). Philosophy of language: A contemporary introduction. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mermin, N. D. (1993). Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell. Reviews of Modern Physics, 65, 803–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pap, A. (1961). An introduction to the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piron, C. (1976). Foundations of quantum physics. Reading: W. A. Benjamin, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (1968). Is logic empirical? In Cohen R. S. and Wartofsky, M. W. (Eds.), Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 5, pp. 216–241). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O. (2006). Philosophy of logic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rédei, M. (1998). Quantum logic in algebraic approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1940). An inquiry into meaning and truth. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarski, A. (1933). Pojȩcie prawdy w jȩzykach nauk dedukcyjnych. Acta Towarzystwa Naukowego i Literackiego Warszawskiego, 34, V–16; (1956. The concept of truth in formalized languages. In J. M. Woodger (Ed.), Logic, semantics, metamathematics (pp. 152–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press, trans).

  • Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and phenomenological research, 4, 341–375 (1952. In L. Linsky (Ed.), Semantics and the philosophy of language (pp. 13–47). Urbana: University of Illinois Press).

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are greatly indebted with Prof. Carlo Dalla Pozza and Dr. Marco Persano for reading the manuscript and providing useful remarks and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Garola.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garola, C., Sozzo, S. Recovering Quantum Logic Within an Extended Classical Framework. Erkenn 78, 399–419 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-011-9353-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-011-9353-4

Keywords

Navigation